[RTTY] contest change

Fri Jul 5 21:37:18 EDT 2013

You can operate longer.....just not in the contest!  

Seriously  - 8 hours off in a 30 hour contest leaves only 22 possible hours to operate.  You're allowed 24 operating hours - and the 6 off must be achieved in no more than 2 blocks of off time as defined by the contest rules.

Al
AB2ZY

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary AL9A
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 9:30 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change

So if I take a single 7 hour break for sleep and then later a 1 hour break for breakfast or lunch the maximum time I can operate will be 22 hrs?

73,
Gary AL9A

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Kozakiewicz
Sent: July 05, 2013 4:42 PM
To: k0rc at citlink.net ; rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change

It's the same basic rule, just stated a different way.  Nowhere does it say that you must take two blocks.  Only that the sum of the two longest blocks must total 6 hours.  One of those longest 2 blocks could well be of zero length.  As long as the sum of the longest two is six hours, the rule letter and spirit is met.

The point of the rule is to concentrate the required downtime into as few
(2) blocks as possible.  Not to force you to take a minimum of two and a maximum of two!

Al
AB2ZT

From: Robert Chudek - K0RC [mailto:k0rc at citlink.net]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 7:57 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Cc: Al Kozakiewicz
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change

Sorry but the "no more than two blocks" is stated in the OLD rule, not the proposed NEW rule.

The NEW rule says the operating time will be calculated by subtracting the TWO longest blocks of time from the total operating period. If I run 12 hours, take a 6 hour break, and run the final 12 hours, that is only ONE longest block of time. The log checking software will not find two separate blocks of off time in that scenario, which is what I was questioning.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
________________________________

On 7/5/2013 10:37 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:

Living proof of the misunderstanding!

The rule is NO MORE THAN two blocks.  Your interpretation after having stated the rule correctly is that a single 6 hour break is not consistent with the rule - it is.  One block IS no more than two blocks!

The point of the rule is to prevent operating the entire period and meeting the downtime requirement by stringing together a large number of slow periods to add up to six hours.

Al

AB2ZY

-----Original Message-----

From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - K0RC

Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 9:40 PM

To: rtty at contesting.com<mailto:rtty at contesting.com>

Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change

This is the first time I have read the CAC recommendation regarding the ARRL RTTY RU contest. The key area that needed attention in my opinion was making the "Two off-periods" requirement understandable. Each year there is a reflector debate about the meaning of the rule. The original wording was
this:

*2.2. The six hours of off time must be taken in no more than two blocks.*

The new wording recommended by the CAC is this:

*2.2 Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed time between the first QSO and the last QSO logged minus the longest two breaks during this elapsed time where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes

each.*

This new wording appears to eliminate one practice used by some operators. 
In the past it has been acceptable to take two 3-hour breaks, back to back with no intervening QSOs.

The way I read it, the new recommended wording eliminates that possibility. 
For example, if I work the first 12 hours and then take a 6-hour break, then 
work another 12 hours, I have met the maximum 24-hour operating requirement, 
but I fail the "longest two breaks of 30 minutes minimum each" requirement.

It appears I would need to make one QSO between my back-to-back 3-hour 
blocks of off-times to satisfy the 2-block requirement.

What do you guys think?

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 7/4/2013 7:47 PM, KC4HW/Jim wrote:

On 4 Jul 2013 at 17:00, Dick Wilson wrote:

Your proposal looks a little like info in the Contest Advisory

Committee report dated Jan. 2013.

It appears these changes were discussed and some dismissed w/o

action.

Suggest reading.

73,

Dick

Hey Dick, thanks for the information.

I did read the report, it seems that the CAC did consider the

"UNLIMITED" issue.  It was unclear whether those changes will be made

in the rules.  Guess we will just have to wait until the rules for

each of the contests are published or revised before the next event.

For everyone else, I really did not know that this information was on

line.  Guess I should have--shame on me!  Here is a link to the CAC

reports on this issues/changes, if you are interested...

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/20

13/January/Doc_28-%20CAC.pdf

Also at the end of that report is the complete list of the CAC

representatives.   So you will know who your contest representative is

in case you have some items that you would like considered.

Jim/KC4HW

_______________________________________________

RTTY mailing list

RTTY at contesting.com<mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________

RTTY mailing list

RTTY at contesting.com<mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________

RTTY mailing list

RTTY at contesting.com<mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty 

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty